Screen/Monitor QC - Why can't anyone get it right!!?

[Jono8]

Screen/Monitor QC - Why can't anyone get it right!!? ACER!

So I finally took the leap (due to a tasty misprice) and ordered a 144hz IPS WQHD 27 inch monitor to upgrade my aging old 1080p TN 60hz screen.

The model is an ACER XF270HU. Now of course when buying anything with a screen I have come to the understanding that odds are it will not be perfect and something will be wrong with it.

I set it all up and straight away tested for all the usual things - backlight bleed, dead pixels, odd tints in parts of the screen etc.

To my surprise....it was perfect! It has the most uniform backlight I have ever seen, no dead pixels and great colour uniformity. I was extremely happy.....or at least I was for a few hours.

I then realised to my horror that it has the most ridiculous image persistence/retention problem I have ever seen! If anything is displayed on the screen for more than a few minutes it will then ghost on to the screen and wont go away for 10 minutes or so. So for example if i have the afterburner OSD up for about 5 minutes and then look at the OCUK forums, the OSD outline (well a sort of negative of it) is displayed over the web page. Edit - ie just writing this post meant that now the smileys displayed on the post editor are now ghosted on to everything...

I now have to decide whether to just send it back or go through ACER warranty support (groan..) as the place I bought it from has none left in stock. I really don't want to send it back as it was such a good price but then at the same time i don't really want to have to send it off for repair a few days after getting it.

I am at my wits end with screens or devices that have screens. I don't think I have ever had a truly good one. The QC on displays just seems to be awful whatever manufacturer you go through. I have seen awful problems on Sony smartphones, Samsung smartphones, surface tablets, Samsung,Acer, HP Monitors, Panasonic TV's. Even the monitor I have got and have had for the last 7 years had to go back to Samsung twice within a year as a line appeared on the screen and they didn't fix it first time.

In fact the very reason i have not upgraded my monitor in so long is because i just KNEW that whatever I bought would have some sort of issue and if I am honest I just couldn't be bothered with the hassle.

Just what is the problem? I am either the most unlucky person ever when it comes to screens or there is just simply too many faulty screens made. Why can't they get it right still? LCD tech has been around for ages now and i really would have thought someone would have been able to figure out the kinks by now. Maybe I am picky, but i don't think you should have imperfections on screens and devices costing hundreds of pounds , especially when they all rave about how good the screens are and how good the colours and colour accuracy etc are.

TLDR - I'm upset as I can never get a screen that is decent on anything and i think it is an absolute ****show.

 

[Wulfster]

Couldn't agree more. Manufacturer QC is an absolute shower of ****. Getting to the point that you need to place your order by phone and get the manager and his mother to promise you that in the very likely event the expensive monitor you bought turns out to be a lemon they'll replace it (not Overclockers, they're very helpful).

Laws need to be tightened or put in place to make these charlatans produce monitors for sale that are free from crippling defects. Sad state of affairs that you need to carefully consider sending back a faulty panel for fear of getting a so called replacement that's worse than the POS you sent back!

*rant over. Sorry but needs addressing.

Best

Wulf (switching to decaf )

 

[johnnystuff]

Seconding that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyLdtG7KZvw

 

[Orangey]

If competition was working properly one of them would be able to rise up in market share by offering better QC. But they're all still consistently terrible...

 

[RidingTheFlow]

I think it did work other way around actually. At the times they've started introducing first LCDs, they tried hard to make them not appear significantly worse than CRTs, otherwise people would never switch. That made for quite stringent checks on uniformity, light bleed etc, you name it. Initially resolution/panel sizes were quite small and prices high so it wasn't unfeasible to keep yields manageable while keeping strict standards.

Later eventually there became more demand for bigger and bigger panels with more and more pixels. Which became gradually more and more difficult to maintain yields - and instead of making it more expensive, market drew prices down because every one wanted this big-ger screen with mo-re pixels!

That meant that manufacturers gradually started to test the waters by dropping the plank of optical/image quality standards. And they have found (pretty much to own surprise) that market *on average* was surprisingly lax. That why quality bar slowly went down over years while arriving to somewhat *uneasy* equilibrium of low price and just enough (dis)satisfied customers...

So the question "why nobody can't get QC right" is wrong - they can get it right, to their own satisfaction as a business. Unfortunately current market means that this "right" does not mean "high quality".

 

[Rroff]

Not sure how anyone can do anything about it unless consumers in general don't put up with it

I recently went through an office that had around 80 or something new systems and from a casual observation in passing I'd have said around 2/3rd of the monitors had what I'd consider unacceptable levels of backlight bleed.

 

[Jono8]

If competition was working properly one of them would be able to rise up in market share by offering better QC. But they're all still consistently terrible...

Indeed. If there was a brand that I knew I could trust with decent QC (ie 99%+ of their monitors were perfect - I know nothing will ever be 100% fullproof) I would pay the premium to do without the hassle of going through a million screens before getting one that works properly.

Instead, they almost all seems as bad as each other (as they all use each others panels anyway!) and it frustrates me hugely that they STILL cannot get it right.

As the other poster pointed out, I don't want a 4k, 6k or 8k screen - it is still expensive/ a ballache to get media at any of those resolutions or above ( it isn't like there is a mainstream streaming service that streams everything at 4k and you need two £600 gpu's to power a high refresh rate 4k monitor for gaming).

The industry really needs to focus on just getting it right at even just 1080p first before just chasing pixel density.

 

[RidingTheFlow]

If competition was working properly one of them would be able to rise up in market share by offering better QC. But they're all still consistently terrible...

It does not work this way, since "better QC" is not free and will drive product price up - this could cause manufacturer *lose* competition against one who's products are more affordable.
And so they compete on several factors at once - price, features, quality and choose the combination which works for them. Current trend over past years was that quality suffered at the expense of more features and cheaper prices.

 

[Orangey]

We're not talking about pleb 60hz 1080p £90 screens here, we're talking about a range of the market where buyers have deeper pockets and the high markups reflect that. A lot of people think the price should include better QC, whatever that would make it. Also I think part of the problem is a lot of these are "gaming" branded and to vendors that means "uneducated consumers", who won't subject their units to any kind of rigourous testing. When NV started selling Titans a lot of pro's snapped them up as cheap pro cards. Pro's are way pickier and had different demands re: heat, power, noise, drivers etc. Seems to be happening here now too.

Although in the end NV put the kibosh on the Titan brand being a cheap Quadro/Tesla. So maybe "gaming" monitors are doomed to bad QC forever.

 

[jigger]

It does not work this way, since "better QC" is not free and will drive product price up - this could cause manufacturer *lose* competition against one who's products are more affordable.
And so they compete on several factors at once - price, features, quality and choose the combination which works for them. Current trend over past years was that quality suffered at the expense of more features and cheaper prices.

Quality control saves money and points manufacturing problems. If your firm is receiving B grade panels when you are paying for A grade you find out. But quality control is so bad I don't think brands bother or are buying D grade or maybe even F grade.

 

[RidingTheFlow]

Quality control saves money and points manufacturing problems. If your firm is receiving B grade panels when you are paying for A grade you find out. But quality control is so bad I don't think brands bother or are buying D grade or maybe even F grade.

Well, ok, you are manufacturer and now know you have manufacturing issues (e.g. your tolerances not tight enough causing bad uniformity or process not clean enough causing dead pixels). But to fix this issues will require significant investment. Why commit these sums of money? Shareholders won't be happy, better just keep selling them as is - seems to work.

Also there is no grading system that panel manufacturers use, at least not anymore for quite a time.

Some of them tried to introduce several years ago, but never agreed on clear definition of "grade", and best they could manage is counting dead pixels.
But this all in the past - no grading done at the moment. Basically when you buy a panels from factory, you get a spec which will specify tolerances/parameters - and you get panels within these tolerances. And these tolerances are not that comprehensive and you can bet that if something not specified it pretty much means it can fluctuate. E.g. most manufacturers still spec uniformity in huge zones (center, corner, sides), even between them acceptable deviance is pretty high - no wonder the bleed you see is actually well within panel spec and it does not even mention that there will be no DSE/striping.

You can only still see "grades" today in some "online panel shops" which just invent their own.

 

[Bantu]

I thought Dell usually had really good QC. In the past they are one brand i have consistently had good experience with. Has the situation changed?

 

[jigger]

Well, ok, you are manufacturer and now know you have manufacturing issues (e.g. your tolerances not tight enough causing bad uniformity or process not clean enough causing dead pixels). But to fix this issues will require significant investment. Why commit these sums of money? Shareholders won't be happy, better just keep selling them as is - seems to work.

Also there is no grading system that panel manufacturers use, at least not anymore for quite a time.

Some of them tried to introduce several years ago, but never agreed on clear definition of "grade", and best they could manage is counting dead pixels.
But this all in the past - no grading done at the moment. Basically when you buy a panels from factory, you get a spec which will specify tolerances/parameters - and you get panels within these tolerances. And these tolerances are not that comprehensive and you can bet that if something not specified it pretty much means it can fluctuate. E.g. most manufacturers still spec uniformity in huge zones (center, corner, sides), even between them acceptable deviance is pretty high - no wonder the bleed you see is actually well within panel spec and it does not even mention that there will be no DSE/striping.

You can only still see "grades" today in some "online panel shops" which just invent their own.

So don't fix problems? Thats not the way to make money thats a fast track to closure.

When you work for a firm past a certain level in the food chain you always have to do whats best for the firm. Share holders come second to the firm.

 

[toon_mad]

I have anxiety when buying monitors these days, I went through hell with BenQ and Overclockers around this time last year with the BenQ BL3200 monitor, my experience was that bad I cannot even be bothered or bring myself to repeating the goings on with that.

Funny enough I just walked into this thread as I was about to create a new one regarding a new monitor I just purchased, the Acer Predator XB1 which has some issues I was going to ask about.

But yes, 100% quality control in my opinion is horrendous, people are spending a lot of money for top end monitors only to be disappointed by terrible quality, why should you be in fear when buying a new monitor, shouldn't it be as simple as picking out a monitor you like, buying it, receiving it and enjoying it without common faults?

As I say for me anyway, buying monitors is just a stressful and anxiety filled experience, I even began thinking that I was cursed or just suffered extremely bad luck but a lot of places I read people time and time again are having bad experiences.

 

[jigger]

I thought Dell usually had really good QC. In the past they are one brand i have consistently had good experience with. Has the situation changed?

UltraSharp's and above direct from Dell still seem to offer solid QC and CS. UltraSharps that don't make the grade seem to have faults rectified and get sold as B grade through official Dell outlets.

 

[Holst1981]

UltraSharp's and above direct from Dell still seem to offer solid QC and CS. UltraSharps that don't make the grade seem to have faults rectified and get sold as B grade through official Dell outlets.

This was one of the reasons I went with a Dell screen.

The problem with that was that the larger screen I really wanted was out of my budget.

 

[Jono8]

So so far I submitted an online repair request Friday night. Contacted Acer first thing this morning and they said I had to wait for a response to my online repair request taking one business day - fair enough. Fast forward to now when they are nearly closed and still nothing...and online chat says I have to wait and they cant do anything till their "concern team" gets back to me!?

How hard is it just to send me the returns label??

Looking good so far! Think I will just send it back to the retailer. Probably less painless than dealing with these morons ( judging from other people's experience of Acer's support/repair service).

 

[aatu]

@Bantu, jigger & Holst1981:

I don't think the Dell was known for its quality, but for their warranty. At least WAS. And then it WASN'T. Not sure where they stand now. I think it was the U2713HM in 2012-2013 that first showed the paradigm change in Dell's QC and their willingness to honor their own robust warranties:

They initially had a very comprehensive warranty on that particular monitor (among other U- and P-series models), including zero-dead-pixel and zero-backlight-bleed warranty. But they suddenly pulled back the backlight-bleed warranty, after the issue became more wide-spread. The bad part was that they didn't pull it only from new purchases sold from that point on. They single-handedly stopped honoring the warranty, even on already purchased deals. (check this thread for more discussion: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18505482&page=2)

But, if you're a company that is widely known for stellar warranty service, and then you actually demonstrate how poorly you're going to honor said service when the crap finally hits the fan, then you can't act surprised when people stop regarding your company as a trustworthy option. Because let's face it: what's stopping them from pulling that same stunt again? They've explicitly proved that they're willing to do that, if need be.

Disclaimer:
I've never owned that particular model, nor any Dell product, for that matter.

Ps. Personally, my biggest gripe is with Philips, who apparently don't care about their customers, once they've got their money. For example, the customers with 2012 HDTVs are currently left with a broken firmware (that for example reboots the set on a DAILY basis), but Philips isn't bothered to actually fix it. Fortunately, I remained with the firmware before that, so I "only" have to deal with the rest of the bugs. The other years' models are apparently also riddled with their own problems, but haven't looked into them that extensively. Either way, the Philips 42PFL6907T (800€) has become the worst purchase of my life thus far.

 

[jigger]

I've not used Dell for a warranty claim for many years and only ever had to use them twice. My last four screens have been Dell Ultrasharps and have had no issues.

The screens I have had to return couldn't have been simpler to deal with. One phone call to CS, passed onto tech support to go through the issue and the next morning a brand new monitor arrived. I do phone Dell and haggle a deal with an extended warranty though. Maybe this is a better service than standard.

If you look around you see official Dell dealers offering B grade monitors so this tells me three things. Dell Ultrasharp monitors are mostly fault free and built to a decent standard and or QC is catching substandard unit and screens are getting returned under warranty for repair and then sold as B grade.

 

[RidingTheFlow]

Oh, but the Dell actually perfectly illustrates the changing standard process I've described.
They just had most of credibility and a lot of trust from consumers - so they still have more of it left than other suppliers. But they still well on the way of losing it, like anyone else, and they standards are the certainly same as others - do not have any illusions about it.

Thing is, present day monitor manufacturers are pretty much at complete and utter mercy of panel fabs. Monitor mfr can't dictate pretty much anything anymore - "don't like our panels? *shrug* no choice for you mate, feel free to look elsewhere, won't find any".
Dell can't "grade" anything anymore, because it will flat out run them out of business - I mean, what would they do with the panels that they reject? They are expensive you know And panel manufacturer won't take them back. "They are within tolerances".
E.g. you would think Dell U3415W would be better than its UW Acer and Asus sibling just because Ultrasharp and Dell will "extra QC"? You wish - exactly same horrible light bleed & uniformity issues. Just people who haven't encounter it (and tried calling on Dell support) still think "oh, Dell surely still the best".

Thing is, there are like just 3-4 big TFT fabs in the whole world, because modern TFT fab is crazily expensive to build (range of billions $$$, easily), with all these high-vacuum-grade robots and etc. And they are not even in competition with each other, because, at least for high-end segment they manage just to make new panel *slightly* different (slightly different curvature, slightly different size/res) - and voila, they again the sole supplier for this kind of panel and free to wipe the floor with monitor manufacturers.